Skip to main content
8:00 am
so, were there those difference a good thing? or did it make no difference at all? >> it's always a good thing to engage in more conversation, engage more members in the conversation. but, when you get down to the bottom line, the president believes that we have to have more taxes from the american people. we're not going to get very far. if the president doesn't believe that the goal ought to be to balance the budget, i'm not sure we're going to get very far. this is the whole issue, we have a spending problem here in washington. >> where is your trust level with the president? i mean, you're talking about these meetings as if they really didn't mean much. >> no, the president and i have a very good relationship. we're open with each other. we're honest with each other. but we're trying to bridge some big differences. >> so, do you trust president obama? >> absolutely. >> absolutely? >> absolutely. there's no issue there.
8:01 am
>> listen to what president obama told george stephanopoulos about the debt this week. >> we have already cut $2.5 trillion, $2.7 trillion out of the deficit. if the sequester stays in, you got over $3.5 trillion in deficit reduction already. so, we don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. in fact, for the nen ten years, it's going to be in a sustainable place. >> is he right that we don't have an immediate crisis? >> we don't an immediate debt crisis. but we have one looming. we have one looming, because we have entitlement programs that are not sustainable in their current form. they're going to go bankrupt. >> how long do we have to solve our problems? >> no one knows where this is. it could be two, three, four years. it reese -- it's not an immediate problem. >> you agree with the president on that? >> yes. but his point, as he went on to say in that interview, is that we don't really need to do anything at this point.
8:02 am
i would argue that we do need to do something. the american people know that you can't continue to spend money that you don't have and that's what the president wants to do. the president also said that in interview that, his goal wasn't merely to balance the budget. he talked about a balanced plan, what's balanced about a budget that never gets to balance? >> let's take a listen to exactly what the president obama said about balancing the budget? >> no, we're not going to balance the budget in ten years, my goal is, not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. my goal is how do we grow the economy and put people back to work. if we do that, we'll be bringing in more revenue and if we control spending, potentially what you have balance. >> a quick response to that. >> that's exactly the point. balancing the budget will in fact help our economy. it will help create jobs in our country. get our economy going again. and put more people back to work.
8:03 am
the fact that the government continues to spend more than a trillion dollars every year that it doesn't have, scares investors, scares business people, makes them less willing to hire people. >> is the grand bargain dead? >> i don't know whether we can come to be a big agreement if we do. it will be between the two parties on capitol hill. hopefully, we can go to conference on these budgets. hope springs eternal in my mind. >> senators graham and ayotte and other republicans have said they're open to new revenue if the president is willing to do significant entitlement reform. is that something you could consider? would you say no to that? >> the president got his tax hikes on january 1st. the talk about raising revenue is over, it's time to deal with the spending problem. >> the president suggested cuts to social security and means
8:04 am
testing medicare is that enough? what more does he have to do on entitlements for you to consider additional revenues? >> we need to put the entitlement programs on a sustainable path. they're not today. and americans understand this. and the sooner we make changes to these programs, to put them on a sustainable path, the easier it will be to make those changes. >> let's move on to the republican party itself and the cpac conference this weekend. two potential presidential candidates. senator marco rubio and senator rand paul. had very different messages about the current state of the party. senator rubio said, we don't need any new ideas. the idea is called america and it still works. and here's what rand paul had to say. >> there is nothing conservative about bailing out wall street. our party is in encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. the gop of old has grown stale
8:05 am
and moss-covered. >> who's right? has it grown stale and moss-covered? >> listen, i think there's nothing wrong with the principles of our party. republicans have not done, as effective job as we should in terms of talking about our principles in terms average people can appreciate. why balancing the budget, would be good for the american family. we have to do a better job of helping people understand what our principles are in terms of what they deal with every day. >> there was a surprise this week, senator rob portman, who's a close friend of yours, and from home, ohio, said that he has had a change of heart of gay marriage. he'll support gay marriage after learning his own 21-year-old son will is gay. had portman shared that with you? >> he called. listen, rob is a great friend
8:06 am
and longtime ally. i appreciate that he's decided to change his views on this. but, i believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. >> can you imagine yourself in a situation where you would reverse your decision as portman has on gay marriage if a child of yours and someone you loved told you was gay? >> no. i believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. that's what i grew up with, what i believe, what my church teaches me, and i can't imagine position would ever change. >> i want to get quickly to a couple more topics, gun legislation, will you commit to have a vote on the house floor on any gun legislation that the senate is able to pass? >> if they pass it, i made clear that we would review it. in the meantime, our committees are continuing to have hearings, trying to get to the bottom of what can we do to help minimize the senseless crime? i mean, listen, all of our
8:07 am
hearts go out to the victims of these mass shootings. what we fleed to -- what we need to understand is, what is it that we truly can do to ensure that this doesn't happen? >> do you see any gun measures passing? >> we'll see what they'll do. we'll continue to have our hearings and review this issue. >> just to close here, you're the highest ranking catholic republican in congress, this week, we saw the conclave elect pope francis, of latin america, what does it mean for you, what does it mean for catholics and the country? >> this is the first time that we have had a pope from the americas. so, i think it's a giant step forward for the church. latin america is a very, very catholic continent. and i do believe that pope francis is the right person, to really bring reform to the church. >> and what kind of reform?
8:08 am
>> there are a number of issues at the vatican that need fresh eyes. he's clearly made a commitment to clean up some of the problems that the church has had. and it's pretty clear, from his humble nature, that his papacy will be one, i think, a lot of people will appreciate. >> thank you so much for joining us this morning, speaker boehner, great to have you here. >> thank you. coming up, our powerhouse roundtable ready to take on the charm offensive. plus, conservative stars align at cpac and that historic pick by the catholic church. back in 90 seconds. catholic church. back in 90 seconds. a, c and tha historic pick by the catholic church. back in 90 seconds. c and that c pick by the catholic church. back in 90 seconds. c and that h pick by the catholic church. back in 90 seconds. ♪ whether you're just beginning the journey... ♪
8:09 am
...starting a family... ♪ ...or entering a new chapter of your life. while the journey is yours, pacific life can help you protect and grow the assets you'll need along the way. to learn how, visit pacific life. the power to help you succeed. executor of efficiency. you can spot an amateur from a mile away... while going shoeless and metal-free in seconds. and from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. now this...will work. [ male announcer ] just like you, business pro. just like you. go national. go like a pro. but at xerox we've embraced a new role. working behind the scenes to provide companies with services...
8:10 am
like helping hr departments manage benefits and pensions for over 11 million employees. reducing document costs by up to 30%... and processing $421 billion dollars in accounts payables each year. helping thousands of companies simplify how work gets done. how's that for an encore? with xerox, you're ready for real business. my son came to my wife and i and told us that he was gay. and that it was not a choice. and that, he, that's just part of who he is. and that launched an interest process for me, which was kind of rethinking my position. i now believe that people ought to have the right to get married. >> republican senator rob portman on his dramatic change of heart, reversing his position on gay marriage after his son
8:11 am
told him that he is gay. we'll get to that in a moment. but first, let's introduce the roundtable. george will. abc's matthew dowd. former hewlett-packard ceo carly fiorina, xavier becerra and audie cornish. welcome to all of you. i want to start with you, george will. you heard what john boehner said, taking a very hard line on any new revenues, even if entitlement reform is offered. how do they break this stalemate, especially after the so-called "charm offensive? >> first, any charm offensive, labeled as a charm offense ive tleesh loses some of its charm. this week, while the charm offensive was going on, two budgets were produced. in which, patrick murray,
8:12 am
the chairman, who produced this, said medicare, medicaid, obama care and social security, the drivers of our fiscal crisis, no to a dime will be touched. ryan said that it's so-called austerity, federal spending will grow, 3.4% over the next decade. his radical idea is that, in 2024, senior citizens will shop for health care, imagine that? you have two budgets that don't have the slightest chance of passing. ryan's budget hasn't a prayer of a chance of passing the senate. because it depends on the repeal of obama care. so, what we need is some more elections. >> carly, it's dueling budgets. no chance? >> i don't think either budget as george suggests, represents a blueprint for a compromise. you know, i continue to hold out
8:13 am
hope that, with pressure building people on both sides on the aisle, will actually set forward with some fundamental reform. we need fundamental tax reform. >> to make it simpler? >> to make it simpler. which would raise revenues without raising rates. we need fundamental reform -- over some of our entitlements. the other thing is, getting lost in this whole discussion is the reality not every dollar spent by the federal government is spent wisely and well. we have lots of room to spend money more wisely and less of it. >> congressman becerra, do you see hope, in talking to you, you see a little hope there? >> i do. some of us are having conversations on other matters like immigration. and i think there's a really good chance that we'll make progress there. but i also think that
8:14 am
john boehner, barack obama and nancy pelosi, you name it, i think people, americans, just want to move forward. they want to see us get something done. you'll see a break in this stalemate soon. now, you got to remember, if folks are going to talk about spending you got to talk about the tax code. the biggest spending we do is through the tax code. over a trillion dollars is spent every year through the tax code. it's all of those loopholes. so, if you want to get rid of spending, you can't leave out all of the stuff through taxes. we give away stuff that very small groups of special interest -- >> we actually agree on this. >> let's put you in the middle. you covered congress. >> i covered congress. and when it's quiet, i think sometimes that means conversations are actually happening. when people are flapping their wings against the cage and screaming into the microphone they feel they haven't been heard. so, another thing, to say about the charm offensive, you got a whole class of lawmakers this is
8:15 am
all they know. maybe it's meaningful if there's follow-through for them to understand there had been administrations there is contact and there is communication. >> matt, to me, that's one of the biggest faults that i have with the president. we have had two presidents in a row that basically underutilized one of the most important powers of the presidency. the number one thing that i said to this president was, he had not used the power of the presidency in order to build relationships. what the president seems to do, go to somebody and be nice to them when he needs a vote from them. when he needs a vote it's there. i say -- >> you're saying too late? >> too little too late. i think it's great that he's doing it, but i wished it started four, five years ago when he began the white house. >> this week, we had the conservative conference, cpac with speaker boehner. and there was a real division on
8:16 am
ideas for the future. let's take a listen. >> we're not here to put a fresh coat of rhetorical paint on our party, we're not here to abandon our principles in a contest of government giveaways, that's a game that we will never, ever win. >> way too many people believe that republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-science, anti-gay. many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidate, even though they share our core beliefs because those voters feel unloved, unwelcomed in our party. >> lot of differences there. carly, you were there, what does this mean? >> i think there's frankly way too much talk about the republican party, its futurist ideas. i think, honestly, most americans don't care about the state of either party, what they care about is the state of their job, their family, their community. i think they're tired of
8:17 am
thinking about the next election. so, look, i think, it's important, whether you're a republican or a democrat, i happen to be a republican, i happen to be a conservative, i think what we need to do is talk about things that we think will work for the american people. stop having all of these "political conversations." and start having some real conversations about getting things done. making people's lives better. >> george will, any stars come out of this for 2016 that we're all going to be paying attention for the next four years? >> first, here's the "new york times" headline on the cpac conference. "gop divisions fester at conservative retreat." festering an infected wound, it's awful. i guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, the "new york times" headline would be healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.
8:18 am
republicans have been arguing, social conservatives and libratrians since the 1950s when the national review was founded on the idea of the fusion of the two. what i saw at cpac was the rise of the liberatarian. the ambitions aboard and at home. and a sense of live and let live with subjects such as decriminalization of certain drugs and gay marriage. >> congressman, anybody make you nervous there at 2016? >> no, no. i think -- >> the whole thing makes me nervous. >> what i see -- what i see is a party that's in disarray that's trying to figure out where it's going to go. republican senator mcconnell said that he doesn't want to be
8:19 am
a part of a crybaby caucus. let's go there as americans not as republicans or democrats. >> marco rubio seen as a reformer, especially on immigration? but he didn't bring it up, why not? >> no, he didn't. it's such a complicated thing. there were immigration panels. this was a huge topic of conversation. maybe as one said last week, you can't expect marco rubio to win the latino vote for you. >> matt, you're just shaking your head. the whole thing makes you nervous? >> well, to me, imagery who's there and what you say is important. i don't think vision is a bad thing. i think that a conservative message that's built for the 21st century would be a good thing. cpac to me, reminds of going land before time. it's like going to a flintstones episode in my opinion. bunch of dinosaurs. most of them are,
8:20 am
throwbacks in time. it's like who's running for the loyal order of the water buffalos. sarah palin, between her and the kardashians, if you add them, there's ten reality shows that have been built around that. i don't think it's helpful to the republican party. i think there are some people, marco rubio who will become and are stars of the party. i think cpac's time has come and gone. it's time for someone to put together a 21st century conservative agenda. >> what's wrong -- what's wrong with having that conversation where the public -- >> i wouldn't do it in the mezoic era. let's move on to another topic for the republicans, that stunning announcement by rob portman that he now supports same-sex marriage, obviously a personal decision for him, the only republican senator to support same-sex marriage, george will, does this go anywhere? >> he will not be the last.
8:21 am
because the demographic tide here is large and powerful. as i said on this program before, opposition to gay marriage is literally dying. it's an older demographic. and if you raise the question among young people, they're not interested. i dir say that this is one of the good things of cpac. this was another division and again, a healthy one. it's largely young people who attend cpac. it's not at the top of their agenda. >> george is right. in the last ten years, i think there's almost been 20-point change of people's perception of gay marriage in this country. i think republicans, any republicans that stand in the way of this, are standing in the way of march of history on this. rob portman i know well. i did debate prep with rob portman in years past. he's a great person. and the people who have criticized him and by the way, he only did it was a personal
8:22 am
thing. to me, why do we criticize people for that? the person who started m.a.d.d., it was a personal thing. many people who have come out of gun control have been personally affected by it. it's a personal decision. god be with them. >> i think we have to be careful, because john boehner's views, which are different from rob portman's views, are equally sincere. i think we get into trouble on this debate when we assume that people support gay marriage are open and compassionate and people who don't aren't. the way to solve these very personal issues is to let people vote on it. don't let judges decide it. don't have representative government decide it. let people vote on it in the state. i think people of both points of view, accept the democratic process. what they don't always accept is
8:23 am
a bunch of self-important, self-appointed judges. >> martha, it was not only welcomed news that rob made this statement, but i think it's part of this march on progress. but, it seems like, it's going to take republicans so long whether it's on immigration or rational gun safety laws or on trying to make sure that we focus on jobs, not on the deficit, to get republicans to join the main stream, to say let's move forward together. >> audie, quickly, is it generational from you what you see? >> i do get -- what's remarkable, you're not seeing a lot of fits of outrage and very angry e-mails coming through from people on the other side of this. so, maybe, there's a shift going on regardless of what you think. >> an historic week for the catholic church.
8:24 am
matt dowd, you're so excited to talk about this, first pope from the americas, pope francis. happy st. patrick's day to you. >> thank you. to me, i think this is a really, really important moment. because of what's going on in the catholic church. the immense scandals. the lack of transparency. the lack of openness and lack of concern for the poor and vulnerable in the society. not only is he the most diverse pope, the fact that he picked the name francis. i think is very apropos. he was told in his mind he was told that he needed to fix the church. he went back, a friend of the environment, a friend of the animals, a friend of the vulnerable. the pope picked the name because he wanted the church to be a poor church and of the poor.
8:25 am
and even if the pope doesn't make progress on certain social issues, if he can make the church a more humble church of more humility, that will be a huge advance. >> carly, just watching those ceremonies, what did you think? 100,000 people. >> what struck me, i saw a picture of a man and his son in a church, i believe, in argentina, and they were literally both fell to their knees when they heard the news, to me that was so touching, because, whether you're catholic or not, what it reminds us, is that people do believe in something larger than themselves. and if they don't believe they want to believe. i thought that it was a moment when so many people in the world were united in a sense of spirituality, whether they were catholic or not. >> quickly, congressman becerra. >> my parents pray the rosary every night. i'm a son of immigrants.
8:26 am
i now see that the pope is a son of immigrants. in america, they may an omen of what's to come. of how we'll treat immigrants. i i think that's phenomenal. >> thank you for joining us. a great roundtable. reminder, we'll have live coverage of the pope's inaugural mass on tuesday. much more ahead. the president heads to the middle east and new cyber attack warnings, what are the risk to all of us. george joins madeline albright, general james cartwright and steve hadley. . this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪
8:27 am
some brokerage firms are. but way too many aren't. why? because selling their funds makes them more money. which makes you wonder -- isn't that a conflict? search "proprietary mutual funds." yikes! then go to e-trade. we've got over 8,000 mutual funds, and not one of them has our name on it. we're in the business of finding the right investments for you. e-trade. less for us. more for you. the fund's prospectus contains its investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information and should be read and considered carefully before investing. for a current prospectus, visit a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪
8:28 am
right now, we think that it would take over a year or so for iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously,
8:29 am
we don't want to cut it too close. they're not yet at the point i think where they have made a fundamental decision to get right with the international community, but i do think that they're recognizing that there's a severe cost for them to continue down the path that they're on and that's there is another door open. >> president obama speaking to israeli tv as he sets off for the middle east this week. george will is back along with madeleine albright, stephen hadley and general james cartwright, fovp o -- former vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff. welcome to all of you. this is a powerhouse roundtable. secretary albright, let's talk about what this trip is really about. it seems to be about iran, why is he going? >> i think it's very important. the president, in his first trip of his second term, to go to
8:30 am
israel to meet with prime minister netanyahu and his new government and to discuss issues generally in the middle east. there are a lot of things to talk about, iran, syria and the region generally. and i'm sure that the peace talks, or the lack of them, is something that's going to be part of the discussion. it's important, the president also wants to talk to the israeli people, he's going to give a speech to the public. >> and he's not very popular with the israeli people, according to the latest polls. >> i think he's more popular than people think. i think they understand the american position. and basically, the united states is there in a relationship with israelis. that's very clear from the president's actions. >> mr. hadley, do you agree with that, is he going over there to really talk about iran? >> i think madeleine has it right. he'll talk about iran. but i think that the most important part is what he says to the israeli people.
8:31 am
there are some messages that they want to hear. that he supports israel as the home land for the jewish people. there are things that they need to hear from him to re-establish the tide between the american president and the israeli people. he can then talk about the peace process between iran and syria. i think the most important thing is really what he says to the israeli people. let's go to iran, general cartwright, all i remember from last fall is that picture of benjamin netanyahu, in front of the u.n. with that ticking time bomb, and he basically drew the line this spring/this summer, for any sort of action against the nuclear facilities in iran. you heard what president obama said. do you think israelis have changed their minds about that time line?
8:32 am
>> my sense is there some ambiguity. no one knows what the time line is. one of the good things about this trip is, it's coming without some sort of promise. we're going to listen, we're going to compare our facts. some sense where we're going both on the iran issue but middle east issue at large. for a chance of the president to reach out. that's very important. that carries a very powerful message, because clearly, nobody knows exactly what's happening in iran. clearly nobody knows how middle east peace should evolve. there are questions about these issues. >> i agree that the president is there to establish a kind of trust with the israeli people, but not so that he can move forward with an israeli/palestinian state.
8:33 am
israelis have been living with terrorism. for some 60-some years. he wants their trust so they will give him time on iran. but listen to what the president just said. the president said -- >> reaching out the diplomacy. >> he said, they may be a year away, let's not cut it close. a year is close. given the fallible nature of the u.s. intelligence. >> if netanyahu has already made that threat, in a way, holding up that time line, he has to kind of stick to that, doesn't he? >> from what i understand the israelis now understand that the iranians have slowed down some of their enrichment possibilities and diverted some of them to peaceful uses for medical purposes. that was told to me by israelis at various times. and so, i think they're trying to develop that ambiguity that the general was
8:34 am
talking about. i don't think anyone is ready to abandon diplomacy. what you have seen with the peace process, it's a slow discussion, there are negotiations going on. and there are some talk about bilateral ones. >> general cartwright? >> my sense is that there is some ambiguity out there. you don't want to have a situation where you're not ready. but you also don't want to rush the answer. this is an opportunity to compare notes. >> again, on the theme, his primary audience is the israeli people, i think what he has to say is, if diplomacy fails and it comes time to do something about iran, i as president of the united states will do it. we're not going to put this on israel and we know that the israelis, in terms of public opinion, they do not want to do something unilaterally, they want to do anything with the
8:35 am
united states. >> i want to move on to another threat, the north korea threat, if we can, and the announcement this week that we are adding 14 interceptors, missile interceptors, because of the north korea threat is so high and they moved faster. let's listen to secretary hagel. >> the reason we're advancing our program here for homeland security is to not take any chances. to stay ahead of the threat. >> we believe that this young lad ought to be deterred by that. if not, we'll be ready. >> general cartwright, that was a pretty alarming statement to have secretary hagel come out. and say they moved faster than we thought. is this alarming? >> it's alarming in the rhetoric side of the equation here and it has clearly propelled the administration towards a shift in the missile defense program.
8:36 am
it is a program that has been labeled as well one that tends to pace the threat. in other words, don't build something until you need it. clearly, the shift that's going on inside the administration is to reduce the reliance and the focus on the regional capabilities that were put out. these are the patriots. and to start the focus, again, back on the homeland. and these are the ground-based interceptors in california and alaska. >> those mobile missiles -- >> the threat is the mobile missiles potentially which hasn't emerged yet. it's time to make sure we're ready for it. the infrastructure has been put in place in alaska. that's not the problem. is there more testing that could be done? we're basically seeing a shift off the money side off the regional side to the strategic side. the second key point, at least from my perspective, what is being spewed in the way of
8:37 am
rhetoric out of north korea is the focus on, we're going to attack our homeland, we're also going to attack the south koreans. if that's true, if we're worried about that, there's another part of this. you don't want to worry just about a strategic attack, you have to focus on your special operations forces and your border capabilities within the united states to make sure that this is not an asymmetric rick approach to the problem. >> secretary albright was there in 2000. >> the clinton administration had active diplomacy with north korea. we had a conversation in the transition between the two administrations, which was probably less than perfect. got a commitment from north korea that we would get out of the nuclear business, but of
8:38 am
course, in parallel with all of that, north korea was pursuing an enrichment program. another route to a nuclear weapon that was done covertly and in violation of the understandings that we all had with them. >> were chances missed? >> i believe so. i mean, i had some really remarkable discussions with kim jong il. we also were in the middle of discussions with them. they said that they would -- we could leave our troops in south korea, we came back, americans were confused about the election of 2000 and i'm sure that kim jong il was also, and i do think it was unfortunate that the cards we left on the table weren't picked up. but the story on north korea is a complicated one of threats, discussions and diplomacy, you're dealing with very erratic leadership in north korea and what concerns me now is that the kind of language that is coming out of north korea, i think, is well-balanced by what the president decided
8:39 am
on the mobile missiles. >> i'm puzzled by the language coming out of washington. i would like to see struck from the language of our diplomacy "acceptable" and "unacceptable" last week, the following was said the united states will not accept north korea as a nuclear state. unless i'm missing something, it has been a nuclear state for more than half a decade. what does it mean? obviously, we have a problem dealing with a regime. that may be a little bit crazy because deterrence depends on the calculations on the other side. stalin for all of his defects was a rational calculator. we don't know if iran is or this odd fellow who runs north korea is rational. and subject to deterrence. >> we had another threat this week that we talked about, the worldwide threat assessment, you had the director of national
8:40 am
intelligence, james clapper, talking about what he thinks is the biggest threat to our homeland now. >> when it comes to the threat this year, it leads with cyber. it's hard to overemphasize its significance. >> the seriousness is increasing on a daily basis. >> general cartwright, you spent a lot of time looking at cyber attacks. it's taking down a grid, how serious is the threat? what do we do about it? >> well, the threat is emerging and it is emerging quickly. it's not just from one actor, it's not just the chinese, it's a threat that covers both industries. >> the president pretty much pointed the finger at the chinese. >> he did, and i think that was appropriate. at least what i have said, we have to start talking about not just a pure defense, we have to start to build an offensive capability. what i thought was important about this week's news, we
8:41 am
started to have that conversation about offensive capabilities, about there being a price for these kind of attacks. >> you go after someone else's network, you go after the chinese. that's complicated in so many ways. would we protect our allies if they're attacked? >> it is very complicated. but i think -- and general cartwright is right. the announcement this week, keith alexander announced that there would be some 17 offensive cyber teams. if you only played defense you're going to lose. it's just too hard to be able to carry every strike. what you need to do is change the calculus, so that those people doing these attacks understand they'll pay a greater penalty than the benefits they get. there are complicated legal issues, policy issues, but unless we get into that space, these attacks won't stop. >> i want to go to something
8:42 am
that you're all familiar, it's the ten-year anniversary of the war in iraq. on this ten-year anniversary, 58% or 6 in 10 americans say the war in iraq was not worth fighting. the poll also shows support for the war in afghanistan is similar with 56% saying the war was not worth it. we have a very short time here, i want to start with you, mr. hadley, you had a hand in both of these wars, would you do it differently? >> they clearly took longer, cost more in terms of lives of americans and coalitions. and people in those countries. but we have accomplished something in iraq, we have a government that's not a threat to our national security, that's an ally in war on terror. they're trying to work together for democratic future. it's a big investment, an important investment, and we're risking that investment by sitting our hands, while syria
8:43 am
melts down and where syria's violence will destabilize lebanon, jordan, iraq and turkey. >> you asked mr. hadley, would we do it differently? the question to me, would we do it at all? if, in 2003, we know what we know now, the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the difficulty of governing, you're going to have a civil war, the answer is i think, no, we would not do it again. >> but can i say -- >> we make these decisions based on what you know at the time. we made that decision. i think the american people wouldn't have supported it. but my point is, we did it. we got something of value and we should protecting it and not squandering that enormous investment we made. >> i can understand why these two polls go together.
8:44 am
i supported president bush on afghanistan, because that's where the people who attacked us on 9/11 came from. the bush administration took their eye off the ball to go to iraq for god knows what reason. now, we're in a position where neither war is being supported. we're worried about what's going to happen next. we have to worry about what infrastructure there is in iraq and the spillover this has on syria. >> thank you all for joining us. this was indeed a powerhouse roundtable. thank you. secretary albright will stick around to answer your questions for today's web extra. coming up, our colleague bob woodruff with a special look back on the tenth anniversary of the iraq war. tenth anniversary of the iraq war. the american dream is of a better future, a confident retirement. those dreams have taken a beating lately. but no way we're going to let them die. ♪
8:45 am
ameriprise advisors can help keep your dreams alive like they helped millions of others. by listening. planning. working one on one. that's what ameriprise financial does. and that's what they can do with you. that's how ameriprise puts more within reach. ♪ all stations come over tots more mithis is for real this time. step seven point two one two. verify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers.
8:46 am
the "sunday spotlight" is up next. but first, "the sunday funnies." >> well, after tours of the white house were canceled due to budget cuts, donald trump has offered to pay for them. yeah, all he's asking is that they rename it the trump white house and casino. less than 24 hours, they came up with a new pope. listen to this, it took a year, it took a year to replace regis, it took a year. >> the supreme court judge has overturned new york mayor's ban on large sugary drinks. that's great. our government can't come to an
8:47 am
agreement on sequestration. but when it comes to real issues on soda, they're swift and decisive.
8:48 am
8:49 am
8:50 am
♪ i'm only happy home ♪ i'm only halfway home ♪ i got journey on that's 21-year-old lance corporal tim donnelly, u.s. marine corps. double amputee. singing with a band of wounded warriors at the standup to hero event in new york city. this week marks the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of iraq. a conflict that left 4,488 americans dead.
8:51 am
and more than 32,000 wounded. we asked our own bob woodruff, who was there during the ground invasion, to take a personal look at the decade of war in our "sunday spotlight." >> reporter: it's hard to imagine that it was ten years ago, what a decade it has been for the u.s. military and a personal journey for me. my team was imbedded with the marines when the war began. all of us were ordered to wear chemical suits in protection from weapons of mass destruction which we later learned didn't exist. many of us witnessed tragedy. loss friends. he was a marine sniper in the unit that i was imbedded with. the 20-year-old was killed just days into the invasion. stepping on an artillery shell. my war reporting in iraq ended
8:52 am
suddenly, less than three years after it began, struck by an ied. an unconscious for 36 days. so, i joined together with the hundreds of thousands of service members who survived, but remain wounded. the war would continue without us, getting far worse than anyone ever imagined. >> listening to the soldiers tell you that, hey, tell your brother that i love you. watching his eyes roll back in his head that he's real close to dying. >> reporter: when president obama took office in 2008, he vowed to bring all of the troops home. three years later, he did. my colleague martha raddatz was with the army on a dusty base in southern iraq as they made their final preparations to leave the long war behind. >> the last daylight these soldiers will see in iraq. >> reporter: crossing through the border, reflection turned to
8:53 am
joy. >> we made it! >> i love you guys! we'll be home in like a week, can't wait! >> reporter: back home the healing began for those who survived. and for the families of those who did not. this week, martha sat down with retired general peter chiarelli who served two tours in iraq and wrote more than 500 letters of condolences. he has his own kind of scars. >> what would you think when you writing those letters? >> you're tearing me apart. you really are. >> ten years is a good place to remember this stuff. >> but, that's really tough. >> so you have to ask the question, and i know it's a simple cliche question that everyone says, was it worth it? >> well, i got to believe it's worth it. >> bob's experience in iraq and his serious injuries compelled
8:54 am
him and his family to form a foundation to help wounded veterans, especially those with traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress. bob joins us now. welcome, bob. it's great to have you here. since the wars in iraq and afghanistan, there have been at least 126,000 cases of traumatic brain injury. and 70,000 of ptsd. is the country ready for it? what can we do with all of these veterans coming home? >> well, first of all, are we ready? certainly a lot better than ten years ago. we didn't know the kinds of injuries and how to deal with them like the ones from the ied. the lives have been saved. but those who have come back have invisible injuries with ptsd. and tbi, traumatic injury. the numbers are going to be
8:55 am
increasing. >> we have both spent so much time with these wounded veterans, what do they want? how do you want to be treated by america? how do you they want to be integrated? >> integrated is probably the right word. they don't want to be called heroes a lot. they wanted to be treat like others in the neighborhood. if people want to help them, do it in your community, try to become friends. there's a wall between 99% of us who are civilians and the 1% who have served in these two wars, we need to bring them together as friends. because that's the best way for them on their recovery. >> i got to say, bob, your recovery still makes me tear up every time i see you and you have done remarkable work with these veterans. thanks very much. bob's organization is called the bob woodruff foundation. you can find it at
8:56 am
and now, we honor our fellow americans who serve and sacrifice. this week, the pentagon released the names of nine service members killed in afghanistan. released the names of nine service members killed in afghanistan. that's all for us today. thanks for sharing part of your sunday with us. check out "world news" with david muir tonight. george is back next week. and we hope you will be, too. and we hope you will be, too.
8:57 am
>> in the news this sunday, the latest on a fatal accident after a sprint race car goes out of control. and pope francis makes his first sunday morning window appearance at st. peter's square. how he broke with tradition to cheers of the crowd. >> and from our high definition emeryville camera, tons of sun, but springtime showers will be back in the forecast. i'll have that for you with our seven-day outl
8:58 am
8:59 am
>> good morning. i'm kira klapper in for carolyn tyler. let's start with a quick first look at the weather. here's meteorologist lisa argen. >> happy st. patrick's day to you. from the damage cam you can see a best of a breeze. we have cooler winds mixes down into the cooler valleys and that's allowing for the temperatures to drop. it's 39 in napa. we were pretty mild all morning long, upper 40s closer to the bay. we are looking once again temperatures in the the upper 50s to low 70s today. plenty of sunshine. but things are going to change. beginning with increasing clouds tomorrow. that's going to lead us to some rain for the first day of spring. i'll have that for you in just a bit. kira. >> thank you, lisa. 9:01 right now. this morning investigators are work to go figure out what caused a race car crash that killed two people north of

This Week With George Stephanopoulos
ABC March 17, 2013 8:00am-9:00am PDT

News/Business. Political guests and viewpoints. New. (CC)

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 16, Iraq 12, North Korea 9, Rob Portman 6, Francis 5, Syria 5, Afghanistan 5, Cartwright 5, Marco Rubio 4, United States 4, Mr. Hadley 3, U.s. 3, Carly 3, Iran 3, John Boehner 3, Israel 3, America 3, Boehner 2, Patrick 2, Becerra 2
Network ABC
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 18 (147 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 1280
Pixel height 720
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 3/17/2013